Is the photo faked?

Dec 2017
35
Россия
#1
Hi There! I've found an article today where it's said that photo is a fake because of there wasn't the standing man in the original one and there is something 'wrong' with the light. In your opinion, what could cause a journalist to remove a person and a light to change direction? (the article is in Russian so ir's a little use of posting the link it self)

1565292535715.png 1565292610075.png
1565292712831.png 1565293176556.png 1565293230484.png
 
Jul 2019
337
New Jersey
#4
I can't comment on the lighting, but I'm rather suspicious that the so-called "original" photo from the magazine (?) has been altered. It looks doctored to me, especially the darkened area where the man was standing and the fact that everyone's all crowded in the forward bunks but the rear ones are all empty. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet on some dishonest denier editing the "original" photo to show a discrepancy.

Also, note the fuzziness in the "original" where that descending piece of wood (above where the man's shoulder would be) ends. In the photo with the standing man it's a much crisper break - it looks a lot more like a piece of wood than in the so-called "original"
 
Jul 2019
337
New Jersey
#6
Also, the blog which this comes from (Winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.co.uk) is inaccessible to anyone who hasn't been invited to view it. What reputable blogger does that?
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,552
Portugal
#7
Apparently the photo was taken by Harry Miller from the 166th Signal Photo Company.

And I don’t know if there is here the professional that you were looking in the other thread. But there are here two interesting comments:

Actually, a link to the Russian page could help.
Since there are people here that read Russian.

And this:

I can't comment on the lighting, but I'm rather suspicious that the so-called "original" photo from the magazine (?) has been altered. It looks doctored to me, especially the darkened area where the man was standing and the fact that everyone's all crowded in the forward bunks but the rear ones are all empty. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet on some dishonest denier editing the "original" photo to show a discrepancy.

Also, note the fuzziness in the "original" where that descending piece of wood (above where the man's shoulder would be) ends. In the photo with the standing man it's a much crisper break - it looks a lot more like a piece of wood than in the so-called "original"
What is the original source of the newspaper magazine? And date and name of it?

EDIT: Saw that you posted the link and that there is some aditional "information" there.
 
Oct 2009
3,557
San Diego
#8
There is nothing "wrong" with the light in the are that was not retouched. ( where the guy was )

Newsprint photos are printed with Halftone linescreens that are very coarse- like 90 lines per inch as opposed to the 160 - 250 lines per inch of magazines.
And printed on very poor paper that absorbs ink.
The tiny dots of ink laid down soak into the paper and bleed- making the dots wider- this is called "dot gain" and causes nuances of shadow to be blacked out. Less noticeable in light areas where the smaller dots don't actually merge.

They removed the guy standing out of puritanical body shame- because the guy was naked and just holding a shirt in front of his junk. The did not try to "make up" the part of the post his arm was covering- they just blacked it out... and they did something similar to the rest of the area he used to cover by retouching the negative with washes of light gray that came out very dark in the print.

Nothing unusual about a publication from that era editing OUT a naked guy.
 
Jul 2019
337
New Jersey
#9
Apparently the photo was taken by Harry Miller from the 166th Signal Photo Company.

And I don’t know if there is here the professional that you were looking in the other thread. But there are here two interesting comments:



Since there are people here that read Russian.

And this:



What is the original source of the newspaper magazine? And date and name of it?

The Russian article say the New York Times Magazine, March 6, 1945.
 
Jul 2019
337
New Jersey
#10
There is nothing "wrong" with the light in the are that was not retouched. ( where the guy was )

Newsprint photos are printed with Halftone linescreens that are very coarse- like 90 lines per inch as opposed to the 160 - 250 lines per inch of magazines.
And printed on very poor paper that absorbs ink.
The tiny dots of ink laid down soak into the paper and bleed- making the dots wider- this is called "dot gain" and causes nuances of shadow to be blacked out. Less noticeable in light areas where the smaller dots don't actually merge.

They removed the guy standing out of puritanical body shame- because the guy was naked and just holding a shirt in front of his junk. The did not try to "make up" the part of the post his arm was covering- they just blacked it out... and they did something similar to the rest of the area he used to cover by retouching the negative with washes of light gray that came out very dark in the print.

Nothing unusual about a publication from that era editing OUT a naked guy.

In any event, you're agreeing that it's pretty clear that the area was edited, regardless of who edited it.
 

Similar History Discussions